> Listos wrote:

> If the parents are unable to "BE" parents, then the child should own up, grow some balls, etc, and say to themselves, I shouldn't get this game because it has the possibility of ruining my future and my psyche" as video games are addictive and ruin your school work.

Agree with most of your stuff, but not that.  Why should the child be put to blame when the child is just that... a child?  Remember, the issue is about what is a good and a bad influence on children.  You have to know what the influence would be before you can say whether the influence is good or bad.  The child is still learning, and doesn't necessarily know what he should be avoiding.

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> I did not concede the "increase the probability" argument. Because it's a matter of theory dependent upon many particulars over which Cuba has sole control, I do not presume that the Cuban authorities will make the mistakes which would allow free trade changes to threaten their power as you do.

I have presented multiple stories in which, whatever the government does, there is an increase in the probability of rights being renewed to the people.  You have done nothing on this subject.

I would rather not encourage slavery with my money (including federal money) on a matter of principle than engage in the immoral act of encouraging slavery by purchasing the products produced by slaves from their masters, regardless of whatever probabilities you figure might be the outcome.

Fancsali, you're a conservative, so I'll explain it this way.

Wars are bad, right?  In general, if it were possible to avoid all war and have no outside threats, that would be good, correct?
So if, let's say, the US were to fight a local war (think Afghanistan) to avoid a large scale conflict (think World War 2), would it be justified?

By not allowing the people a better shot at freedom, you are condemning them to the slavery you oppose.  THAT is an unethical principle.

You have conceded multiple arguments that allowing trade would increase the probability of freeing those people from the slavery you oppose.

That means, in your effort to make a statement that slavery is bad, you have entrenched slavery.

We do still have principles.  But principles are better guided by calculated action than blind emotion.

I thought Primo had the sheep fixed!  X(

Look, at the very least, removing trade barriers means the US will gain a power hold against Cuba, preventing major conflict.  Think about it.  What will Cuba be exporting to the US that, if removed, will cause a US economic collapse?  Probably nothing.  Maybe cigars? 

What about US exports to Cuba?  We export agricultural machinery, agricultural goods of all types, provide capital investment, produce tons of industrial goods, and have a huge service sector.

Now, let's assume that Cuba does not reform.  That means one of a few things:

A: Cuba becomes uncompetitive relative to most other nations.  Game over.
B: Individual businesses may boycott Cuba themselves.
C: Cuba isn't an oil nation: It is an agricultural nation that requires workers to fuel its economic growth.  Thus, if it can retain a competitive advantage against other nations while retaining its communist society, then it would prove that us capitalists are wrong, at least in the context of the Cuban society.  Or, at the very least, it would mean there is nothing uniquely wrong with THEIR society, and we can move on with our lives.

Now, this argument assumes a relatively honest labor-business relationship.  If someone here is willing to argue that there isn't an interdependence between labor and business in Cuba (example: oil nations that use relatively little labor to achieve their economic growth), or a huge amount of coercion in the system (i.e. slavery), then it may be a different story.

Bravo!

Lost income when you didn't have a job in the first place?

> xeno syndicated wrote:

> > I'm glad he isn't an economist, else we would have got the same narrow-minded bull@$#@ we usually get.

You sure that you like that slippery slope?

"I'm glad I didn't get my heart checked by a doctor after that heart attack, else he would have told me I need some double-bypass bullshit!"

Interdisciplinary studies is NOT a slippery slope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdisciplinary_studies

Interdisciplinary studies is one thing.  But the problem is, you have to be able to cite something from his field that can't be gained from economics, yet would apply to economics.

For example, an economist may not be able to percieve, for example, the impacts of global warming on the economy in the long term, and thus why economics must take into account global warming when determining if taxation of polluters is efficient.  A climatologist could bring this into the game.

The reason why the interdisciplinary study is beneficial isn't because the person isn't an economist.  It's because the outsider has knowledge that the economist can't.  In this case, it doesn't apply because your person's specialty, as he said, is neurotoxicology.

I mean... I was going to use the equivalent of a plumber doing your open heart surgery.  But even a plumber has some outside knowledge in terms of dealing with drains and clogs that could possibly be beneficial in dealing with the circulatory system.  Your example is like a janitor coming into a college university and telling us all about European history, with the credential that he didn't study European history.

Oh, and don't try to say "he uses the scientific method."  If you do, you're just wrong, because economists also use the scientific method and study to come to their conclusions.  They don't just pull shit out of their asses, unlike... well, nevermind.

!modeipmodeipmoP

It's for your own good, Fokker.

I don't believe that if you were telling the truth, you would waste your time on this forum.